How many of you would have apostatized over the White Salamander Letter?

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

History of the letter:

-Lyn Jacobs initially offered it to Don Schmidt of the LDS Church Historical Department on January 3, 1984, in exchange for a $10 Mormon gold piece. The offer was declined.

-Jacobs then met with Gordon B. Hinckley, who said; "I don't really know if we [the LDS Church] want it."

-Jacobs then offered to trade it for a copy of the Book of Commandments, which was also rejected.

-Jacobs asked Brent Ashworth if he had interest, but he had already seen a transcript from Hoffman and declared it to be fake.

-Then the church's Historical Department found the contents of the letter to seem too similar to Howe's Mormonism Unvailed (an anti publication), casting further doubt on its authenticity.

-Then Gordon B. Hinckley recommended to the First Presidency that the Church NOT purchase it.

-Then it was offered to other parties including Jerrald and Sandra Tanner, but they too expressed doubts in its authenticity.

-Finally, after all of those rejections, Steven F. Christensen purchased it and found an examiner who disagreed with the previous examiners and declared it to be authentic.

-In April 1985, with that ONE examiner claiming it authentic amidst the SEVERAL who expressed doubt (including the Tanners), President Hinckley objectively addressed both sides of the issue by stating, "No one, of course, can be certain that Martin Harris wrote the document. However, at this point we accept the judgment of the examiner that there is no indication that it is a forgery. This does not preclude the possibility that it may have been forged at a time when the Church had many enemies."

That is the comment that the antis feast upon. What they intentionally fail to include is the history of the letter being rejected over and over. Instead, they twist Hinckley's objective report as "being duped" and "unable to discern evil intentions."

Those whose testimonies were shaken were most likely not given the full story.

Hinckley later acknowledged his critics by offering the following: "I accepted [Jacobs] to come into my office on a basis of trust.... I frankly admit that Hofmann tricked us. He also tricked experts from New York to Utah, however.... I am not ashamed to admit that we were victimized. It is not the first time the Church has found itself in such a position. Joseph Smith was victimized again and again. The Savior was victimized. I am sorry to say that sometimes it happens."

Sorry Indy but I voted no in your little poll.

Thank you, wikipedia.

I still think the real "meat" issue is one of attempted concealment. I don't think there's much to the argument that a divinely-inspired church shouldn't be fooled by a forger. There are much better examples of mistakes that the church has made and as you say, there's evidence that the church wasn't completely duped.

[Sleeping in EQ]

The Sillitoe book, Salamander: The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders, is quite good.

[Taq Man]

Nothing to see here.

Dallin H.Oaks
"Another source of differences in the accounts of different witnesses is the different meanings that different persons attach to words. We have a vivid illustration of this in the recent media excitement about the word 'salamander' in a letter Martin Harris is supposed to have sent to W.W. Phelps over 150 years ago. All of the scores of media stories on that subject apparently assume that the author of that letter used the word 'salamander' in the modern sense of a 'tailed amphibian.....

One wonders why so many writers neglected to reveal to their readers that there is another meaning of 'salamander,' which may even have been the primary meaning in this context in the 1820s.... That meaning... is 'a mythical being thought to be able to live in fire.'...A being that is able to live in fire is a good approximation of the description Joseph Smith gave of the Angel Moroni:.. the use of the words white salamander and old spirit seem understandable....

In view of all this, and as a matter of intellectual evaluation, why all the excitement in the media, and why the apparent hand-wringing among those who profess friendship or membership in the Church?" Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, 1985 CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium," pages 22-23, Aug. 16, 1985

There is no end to apologetics on anything that happened in the past, real or made up.

This reminds me of Clinton saying it depends on what your definition of "Is" is.

[OrangeUte]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The Sillitoe book, Salamander: The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders, is quite good.

I agree.

I was in high school when the Hoffman murders occurred. Christensen's sister in law taught at my school and when he died I started paying attention to the cover-up. To this day I struggle with the actions of the church in covering the situation and their involvement up. Hoffman would have gotten the death penalty if the church leaders (Hinckley and Pinnock) hadn't been involved. I am convinced that the church, in protecting it's leaders from testifying, "urged" the local authorities to plea deal with Hoffman.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

I agree.

I was in high school when the Hoffman murders occurred. Christensen's sister in law taught at my school and when he died I started paying attention to the cover-up. To this day I struggle with the actions of the church in covering the situation and their involvement up. Hoffman would have gotten the death penalty if the church leaders (Hinckley and Pinnock) hadn't been involved. I am convinced that the church, in protecting it's leaders from testifying, "urged" the local authorities to plea deal with Hoffman.

That's an interesting angle I hadn't heard. Is that outlined in the book?

[OrangeUte]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

That's an interesting angle I hadn't heard. Is that outlined in the book?

It has been awhile since I read the book, so I can't remember how thorough this is addressed in the book, but yes, it's in there.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I was young at the time, but my understanding is that they became public only after the bombings and as they became part of the investigation.

EDIT: I guess I shouldn't say "public" as the contents were public from the outset. But I think there were many who were concerned that the Church's motive in purchasing the document was to "bury" it; the contents then became widely known with the bombings and subsequent investigation. I have no idea if this is a fair accusation, but there are some smart people ( and active members of the church) who feel that there is at least some validity to it. If it's true, I don't really like it, and that's all I meant by the original post.

I recall the docs being widely public long before the bombings. Hoffman had become some kind of historical super sleuth, finding all kinds of Mormon docs dating back to the beginnings of The Church. Eveything he found became fairly well circulated quickly. Ute4ever's time line shows that the cat was out of the bag way before The Church finally purchased the document, even after The Church declined to buy it twice (thus confirming the rule of all salespeople that one must be rejected at least twice before getting the sale). The Church didn't seem in a hurry to buy it to bury it. Once it was purchased, it was out there for all to see and examine, bringing on very interesting arguments from apologists about salamanders as heavenly messengers.

I can certainly accept that The Church has not always been forthcoming, and has tried to keep certain aspects of its history from public view (certainly bothersome), but I don't know that this particular episode is part of that grand conspiracy. But I can understand why some might believe otherwise. Some people still think Danny Ainge bit Tree Rollins.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

I recall the docs being widely public long before the bombings. Hoffman had become some kind of historical super sleuth, finding all kinds of Mormon docs dating back to the beginnings of The Church. Eveything he found became fairly well circulated quickly. Ute4ever's time line shows that the cat was out of the bag way before The Church finally purchased the document, even after The Church declined to buy it twice (thus confirming the rule of all salespeople that one must be rejected at least twice before getting the sale). The Church didn't seem in a hurry to buy it to bury it. Once it was purchased, it was out there for all to see and examine, bringing on very interesting arguments from apologists about salamanders as heavenly messengers.

I can certainly accept that The Church has not always been forthcoming, and has tried to keep certain aspects of its history from public view (certainly bothersome), but I don't know that this particular episode is part of that grand conspiracy. But I can understand why some might believe otherwise. Some people still think Danny Ainge bit Tree Rollins.

the church keeps all kinds of historical stuff hidden, that's indisputable. whether the salamander stuff was hidden is just one minor case examination.

Juanita Brooks' MMM book contained at the end an account of how she had been prevented from seeing documents by apostles.

Please folks, keep your eye on the ball.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

I recall the docs being widely public long before the bombings. Hoffman had become some kind of historical super sleuth, finding all kinds of Mormon docs dating back to the beginnings of The Church. Eveything he found became fairly well circulated quickly. Ute4ever's time line shows that the cat was out of the bag way before The Church finally purchased the document, even after The Church declined to buy it twice (thus confirming the rule of all salespeople that one must be rejected at least twice before getting the sale). The Church didn't seem in a hurry to buy it to bury it. Once it was purchased, it was out there for all to see and examine, bringing on very interesting arguments from apologists about salamanders as heavenly messengers.

I can certainly accept that The Church has not always been forthcoming, and has tried to keep certain aspects of its history from public view (certainly bothersome), but I don't know that this particular episode is part of that grand conspiracy. But I can understand why some might believe otherwise. Some people still think Danny Ainge bit Tree Rollins.

I was 10-11 at the time so I can't say I followed it too closely, but from what I've heard, "widely public" is overstating it. They were available to those who were interested (as all controversial documents have been) but there was some hope that the Church could quietly purchase these and keep them out of the public eye.

I have no idea if this is true and won't argue with you if you say it isn't. This is just the way I've heard the story. I can't recall the source, but it seemed it was more along the line of a Richard Bushman than a Jerald Tanner.